eldirector
Grandmaster
For some reason, I thought Atheism was the belief that this is no God. Agnostic was the lack of belief.Atheism isn't a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
Maybe I've got it wrong.
For some reason, I thought Atheism was the belief that this is no God. Agnostic was the lack of belief.Atheism isn't a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
Atheism isn't a faith. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
I'm only a little more atheist than you. You and I agree that man has created thousands of gods over the years. I include one more on that list that you do...yours.
Breathing is easy, we do it in our sleep. Is that really what you consider living?
What makes you say that?
I need to work on my jokes... didn't mean to offend anyone's beliefs ....
IAM
...not easily offended.
Off-topic and mostly out of curiosity - Is there one big issue that you side with enough to consider yourself "liberal", or are you pretty much liberal on most stances (except guns, I assume)?
I've never noticed you discuss it much, just curious. I have a couple liberal stances... but my "hands off" issues being 1A and 2A (mostly Constitution-related stuff) make me typically label myself Conservative (or probably Libertarian-ish after this year.) I guess Constitutionalist is pretty accurate.
A lack of belief would be agnosticism (without knowledge). Atheism (without god) is a belief, a faith. Are you certain you're an atheist? How did you get there from the neutral point of not being able to know?
We both probably agree that many counterfeits exist, too. If you add one too many to that list, you do away with the original article they were attempting to copy. That's not sound reasoning. What would you call the counterfeits then? They wouldn't be counterfeits.
The Christian Bible is the (Christian) argument for the existence of gods. I have entertained the argument, considered it carefully, and rejected it. I do not believe that the being(s) described by the Christian Bible exists.
The same for Zeus and his buddies...and Thor and Odin...and Quetzalcoatl...and every other god I've encountered in my time on this planet.
Atheism is our default state. Religion...the belief in gods...is an entirely cultural phenomenon. If someone hasn't heard the story of your particular religion they will never be aware of the "existence" of your gods...this alone is a powerful argument against gods...how great can this being be, if someone else has to apologize its very existence?
There are religions operating today that are older than Christianity, which itself borrows heavily from other first-century Middle-Eastern religions. It's counterfeits all the way down, brother...
Are these genuine questions or are you trying to get to a "gotcha" moment? And I mean that in the most genuine way. I enjoy these discussions and everyone's input.
The Christian Bible is the (Christian) argument for the existence of gods. I have entertained the argument, considered it carefully, and rejected it. I do not believe that the being(s) described by the Christian Bible exist(s).
The same for Zeus and his buddies...and Thor and Odin...and Quetzalcoatl...and every other purported god I've encountered in my time on this planet.
Atheism is our default state. Religion...the belief in gods...is an entirely cultural phenomenon. If someone hasn't heard the story of your particular religion they will never be aware of the "existence" of your gods...this alone is a powerful argument against gods...how great can this being be, if someone else has to apologize its very existence?
There are religions operating today that are older than Christianity, which itself borrows heavily from other first-century Middle-Eastern religions. It's counterfeits all the way down, brother...
"Addressing their unbelief" is an interesting thing to Christians.
Raving on the streetcorner, Internet, and local television that people like me are everything that is wrong with America isn't a position founded in respect for one's fellow man. Respect is the foundation of civility. Defacing our billboards and monuments, intimidating and ostracizing our children...these are not behaviors that inform us of your civil intentions.
I personally use the Cambridge text which is the seventh edition, I believe that is the 1769 edition. My current bible is a Local Church Publishers edition. No apocrypha.
Thomas Nelson reverted to the sixth edition back in the 90's and we had to switch to giving World bibles in school when kids became free readers, because there are major differences. That is a joke they were very minor the 2d through 7th editions were limited to spelling corrections and consistency. The problem we had was in memorization kids committed heresy like saying upon instead of on and things like that.
Nenson then published the NKJV and called it the eighth edition.
For some reason, I thought Atheism was the belief that this is no God. Agnostic was the lack of belief.
Maybe I've got it wrong.
It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.
I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.
I am not conflicted. I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.
I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance. If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas. If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.
So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.
It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.
I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.
I am not conflicted. I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.
I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance. If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas. If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.
So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.
...The point made regarding consistency of belief systems presupposes there is no entity engaging in deceit. Just because 12 people believe 12 different things is not an indictment on God's consistency. It is evidence of deceit and an indictment on the gullibility and corruptibility of man.
It is knowable, brother. It is a matter of choosing to know it. And that is very difficult for some people...
Might I borrow this for another thread at some point? Pure gold (the whole thing).
It sounds more like you think you could do a better job at being God than He can. Why does God need to fit into your box to exist? Logically I mean. God doesn't exist because he doesn't conform your idea of what he should be? Why would a god be constrained to be fully understood by people who clearly are not gods?
Who says God has to be nice? (He is) Why does God have to reveal himself? (He does)